How big of a pay cut should employees take to give their CEO a 300% raise?

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Baker's Union bosses have given indications that they deliberately caused Hostess to go under so that it could blame Bain style tactics for the company's demise.

Hostess had problems before the vultures bought it - obviously - or the vultures would not have bought it. Those problems weren't caused by the union.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The problem with America is that working people have given strong indications that they are just tired of working and would prefer cradle to grave retirement.

If you hate Americans so much you should move.

 

[BillyV]

Vulture capitalists buy a company to destroy it and - according to the right - the workers should get the blame.

Is this surprising to you?

Can anyone explain it?

Are right wingers just that stupid? Do they not realize that when vulture capitalists buy a company and give their CEO's big fat pay raises - the purpose is to milk as much cash out of the company before it goes out of business?

Vulture Capitalism Ate Your Twinkies | The Nation

The BCTGM workers did not ask for more pay.

The BCTGM workers did not ask for more benefits.

The BCTGM workers did not ask for better pensions

The company was already in the crapper, when the new captial was aquired. A healthy, established company does not need venture capital, it can provide it from other, safer sources.

The true indicator of how dumb the bakers union was is that the TEAMSTERS TOOK THE DEAL. If the teamsters realized that the deal they were getting was as good as they were going to get, and the teamsters are a pretty strong union, one has to wonder what the **** the bakers were thinking.

Also remember that teamster members are far more mobile when it comes to getting similar jobs in different industries, unlike, say a bakers union. The fact that they could reasonably assume they could re-employ thier members and they STILL took the deal should speak volumes about the financial situation of hostess.

The bakers were thinking that once Hostess sells off its assets, the BCTGM union would be in a good position to lean on the next owner, as their president wrote back in May:

If Hostess abrogates our contracts and our members are forced to take action, and Hostess goes off the market, we believe the production assets will be purchased by competitor companies. If a simple majority of the workforce is retained, the new employer is required by law to negotiate a first contract.

BCTGM | A Letter from President Hurt to all BCTGM Members Employed by Hostess Brands

So basically they had already envisioned putting Hostess out of business. The message is, screw the other 70% of the workforce; we believe we will be better off after liquidation, and that's all that matters.

 

[kwc57]

How big of a pay cut should employees take to give their CEO a 300% raise?


The vultures who bought Hostess thought it should be around 30%.

Their employees disagreed. I guess they're just greedy, right?

What Hostess should have done was close all of their bakeries in union states and beefed up their operations in right to work states.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Vulture capitalists buy a company to destroy it and - according to the right - the workers should get the blame.

Is this surprising to you?

Can anyone explain it?

Are right wingers just that stupid? Do they not realize that when vulture capitalists buy a company and give their CEO's big fat pay raises - the purpose is to milk as much cash out of the company before it goes out of business?

Vulture Capitalism Ate Your Twinkies | The Nation

The BCTGM workers did not ask for more pay.

The BCTGM workers did not ask for more benefits.

The BCTGM workers did not ask for better pensions

Perspective, OohPoo. When hostess went under they were 340 million in the red. The 300% pay increase the CEO got resulted in a pay of 2.25 million the last year. See the difference in the numbers. Even if the CEO gave back every penny he earned at hostess it still would have went under. Vulture capitalism and greedy CEOs did not ruin hostess.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

How big of a pay cut should employees take to give their CEO a 300% raise?


The vultures who bought Hostess thought it should be around 30%.

Their employees disagreed. I guess they're just greedy, right?

What Hostess should have done was close all of their bakeries in union states and beefed up their operations in right to work states.

Yeah that makes sense. When unions demand a 0% pay raise they need to be punished.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Vulture capitalists buy a company to destroy it and - according to the right - the workers should get the blame.

Is this surprising to you?

Can anyone explain it?

Are right wingers just that stupid? Do they not realize that when vulture capitalists buy a company and give their CEO's big fat pay raises - the purpose is to milk as much cash out of the company before it goes out of business?

Vulture Capitalism Ate Your Twinkies | The Nation

The BCTGM workers did not ask for more pay.

The BCTGM workers did not ask for more benefits.

The BCTGM workers did not ask for better pensions

Perspective, OohPoo. When hostess went under they were 340 million in the red. The 300% pay increase the CEO got resulted in a pay of 2.25 million the last year. See the difference in the numbers. Even if the CEO gave back every penny he earned at hostess it still would have went under. Vulture capitalism and greedy CEOs did not ruin hostess.

Its OK to take all the half-pennies so long as no one notices, isn't it?

No one is saying Hostess was sunk by a single executive pay raise. This thread is about the absurdity of giving the CEO of a failing company a pay raise while cutting the salaries of the workers.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

Vulture capitalists buy a company to destroy it and - according to the right - the workers should get the blame.

Is this surprising to you?

Can anyone explain it?

Are right wingers just that stupid? Do they not realize that when vulture capitalists buy a company and give their CEO's big fat pay raises - the purpose is to milk as much cash out of the company before it goes out of business?

Vulture Capitalism Ate Your Twinkies | The Nation

Perspective, OohPoo. When hostess went under they were 340 million in the red. The 300% pay increase the CEO got resulted in a pay of 2.25 million the last year. See the difference in the numbers. Even if the CEO gave back every penny he earned at hostess it still would have went under. Vulture capitalism and greedy CEOs did not ruin hostess.

Its OK to take all the half-pennies so long as no one notices, isn't it?

No one is saying Hostess was sunk by a single executive pay raise. This thread is about the absurdity of giving the CEO of a failing company a pay raise while cutting the salaries of the workers.

So the employees would have been happier if they got a small pay raise before losing their jobs?

Again, it's perspective. Giving all 18,000 employees a raise would have cost significantly more than that single executive pay raise. I understand where you're coming from. It feels wrong and it looks bad. But when you step back and look at the numbers it starts to make a lot more sense.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe the Union workers will form their own company?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Perspective, OohPoo. When hostess went under they were 340 million in the red. The 300% pay increase the CEO got resulted in a pay of 2.25 million the last year. See the difference in the numbers. Even if the CEO gave back every penny he earned at hostess it still would have went under. Vulture capitalism and greedy CEOs did not ruin hostess.

Its OK to take all the half-pennies so long as no one notices, isn't it?

No one is saying Hostess was sunk by a single executive pay raise. This thread is about the absurdity of giving the CEO of a failing company a pay raise while cutting the salaries of the workers.

So the employees would have been happier if they got a small pay raise before losing their jobs?

Again, it's perspective. Giving all 18,000 employees a raise would have cost significantly more than that single executive pay raise. I understand where you're coming from. It feels wrong and it looks bad. But when you step back and look at the numbers it starts to make a lot more sense.

They weren't asking for a raise!

 

[Katzndogz]

The problem with America is that working people have given strong indications that they are just tired of working and would prefer cradle to grave retirement.

If you hate Americans so much you should move.

I'm in it for the sabotage!

 

[Wacky Quacky]

They weren't asking for a raise!

Without the cuts the company would have went under even sooner. Like I said, I know it looks and feels wrong, but in the grand scheme of things the CEO's pay wasn't even worth noticing. It's like paying attention to a pinhole leak while there are gaping holes everywhere else.

 

[Katzndogz]

They weren't asking for a raise!

Without the cuts the company would have went under even sooner. Like I said, I know it looks and feels wrong, but in the grand scheme of things the CEO's pay wasn't even worth noticing. It's like paying attention to a pinhole leak while there are gaping holes everywhere else.

Especially since the CEO didn't get a raise, but got fired instead!

Destroying Hostess was necessary to blame Bain (who had nothing whatsoever to do with Hostess) and republicans. This is as much a war of propaganda as the one in gaza.

 

[Wacky Quacky]

They weren't asking for a raise!

Without the cuts the company would have went under even sooner. Like I said, I know it looks and feels wrong, but in the grand scheme of things the CEO's pay wasn't even worth noticing. It's like paying attention to a pinhole leak while there are gaping holes everywhere else.

Especially since the CEO didn't get a raise, but got fired instead!

Destroying Hostess was necessary to blame Bain (who had nothing whatsoever to do with Hostess) and republicans. This is as much a war of propaganda as the one in gaza.

Bullshit, this was just business. There's no need to politicize it with some conspiracy theory.

 

[Stephanie]

Without the cuts the company would have went under even sooner. Like I said, I know it looks and feels wrong, but in the grand scheme of things the CEO's pay wasn't even worth noticing. It's like paying attention to a pinhole leak while there are gaping holes everywhere else.

Especially since the CEO didn't get a raise, but got fired instead!

Destroying Hostess was necessary to blame Bain (who had nothing whatsoever to do with Hostess) and republicans. This is as much a war of propaganda as the one in gaza.

Bullshit, this was just business. There's no need to politicize it with some conspiracy theory.

Well you forgot to tell union Boss Trumka that..because he BLAMED all those in a article he did for ABC

 

[kwc57]

How big of a pay cut should employees take to give their CEO a 300% raise?


The vultures who bought Hostess thought it should be around 30%.

Their employees disagreed. I guess they're just greedy, right?

What Hostess should have done was close all of their bakeries in union states and beefed up their operations in right to work states.

Yeah that makes sense. When unions demand a 0% pay raise they need to be punished.

You know, we do just fine in right to work states. Our cost of living is cheaper and we have a much lower unemployment rate than union states. Union demands eventually end up killing companies.

 

[Stephanie]

What Hostess should have done was close all of their bakeries in union states and beefed up their operations in right to work states.

Yeah that makes sense. When unions demand a 0% pay raise they need to be punished.

You know, we do just fine in right to work states. Our cost of living is cheaper and we have a much lower unemployment rate than union states. Union demands eventually end up killing companies.

and they suck off us Taxpayers with Government jobs..

But you can't get that through peoples heads

 

[Rshermr]

The Baker's Union bosses have given indications that they deliberately caused Hostess to go under so that it could blame Bain style tactics for the company's demise.

Really? Do you have an impartial source for that???

 

[Rshermr]

They weren't asking for a raise!

Without the cuts the company would have went under even sooner. Like I said, I know it looks and feels wrong, but in the grand scheme of things the CEO's pay wasn't even worth noticing. It's like paying attention to a pinhole leak while there are gaping holes everywhere else.

Especially since the CEO didn't get a raise, but got fired instead!

Destroying Hostess was necessary to blame Bain (who had nothing whatsoever to do with Hostess) and republicans. This is as much a war of propaganda as the one in gaza.

and your impartial source is where???

 

[Rshermr]

Yeah that makes sense. When unions demand a 0% pay raise they need to be punished.

You know, we do just fine in right to work states. Our cost of living is cheaper and we have a much lower unemployment rate than union states. Union demands eventually end up killing companies.

and they suck off us Taxpayers with Government jobs..

But you can't get that through peoples heads

Key word is "us taxpayers". You believe that government jobs have no value. So, quit driving on our roads, don't use the national parks, and then come back and complain. In the interim, the majority of people do not believe that gov jobs do not have value.